[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 18/09/2012 00:06:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:42 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Mike S., On 17/09/2012 22:05:I'll rephrase: What is roughly the logical form of, and what does the if-clause modify in, "We both know where the Lojban list is if we want to talk about Lojban's specification."I think the logical form is simply "All cases in which we want to talk about Lojban's specification are cases in which we know where the Lojban list is". la fa [we want to talk about Lojban's specification] va [we know where Lojban list is] tta"va fa", right?
I think not, tho I trust you more than I trust me, in these matters, la fa je [we want to talk about Lojban's specification] va[=ni/nu] [we know where Lojban list is] tta Did I go wrong somewhere?
[I can't remember what Jorge had suggested for tt- "all"]"gnmake" for "A are all of/consists of E", but I'm not sure it works here as a single place "all" that stands on v-. With one argument "gnm-" just means "is a group".
OK, so tt then for the time being.
BTW, I would replace v- by nuk-, to fee up v-& make the kinship with nu apparent.I thought about that too! But my idea was "nik". Since v- is ni/nu, it seems more intuitive to me to associate it with ni. I was also thinking of jek- for g-, what do you think?
Yes, nik and jek seem good. Having said that, ni & nu themselves hardly deserve very short forms in their own right. O dear, should we, or shouldn't we, be investing effort in buffing up the little details that it's so hard to resist trying to get right, when all might be swept away? Maybe even if the collaborative project heads off in another direction we should keep classic Xorban as a thing of beauty in its own right?? --And.